Overview: Criminal Conspiracy | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• Conspiracy involves a group of individuals joining together for unlawful purposes, essentially agreeing to commit an illegal act. In the context of Indian law, criminal conspiracy is considered a substantive offense under the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) of 1860.
• Typically, when individuals are accused of criminal conspiracy, they are also charged with another substantive offense under the I.P.C. or different legislation.
• The I.P.C. introduced Chapter V-A in 1913 to specifically address the offense of criminal conspiracy. This article aims to analyze the substantive offense of criminal conspiracy using relevant case laws for illustration.

Background

Originally, the term ‘conspiracy’ referred to the acts of agreement between two or more individuals to initiate a false legal case against someone or to conduct legal proceedings in a vexatious or improper manner.

Poulterer’s Case (1611)

• In the Poulterer’s case, the Star Chamber first developed the criminal aspect of conspiracy and recognized it as a substantive offense.
• Brief facts of the case:
• Walters and other defendants falsely accused Stone of robbery, attempting to damage his family’s reputation.
• Despite the false accusations, Stone had an alibi with 30 witnesses proving he was in London on the day of the alleged robbery.
• The jury found Stone not guilty, and he was discharged.
• Stone then approached the Star Chamber to clear his name and restore his reputation.
• The defendants tried to settle the matter out of court and persuade Stone to drop the suit.
• When the legal process began, the defendants accused Stone of barratry and intimidated some of his witnesses.
• The court ruled that the presence of conspiracy among the defendants, regardless of Stone’s false indictment or acquittal, constituted a crime.

MULCAHY V. R.

• The House of Lords in Mulcahy v. R.(1868) defined conspiracy as the agreement of two or more individuals to commit an unlawful act by unlawful means.
• As long as the design remains an intention only, it is not indictable.
• There must be an agreement to carry the act into effect, making the plot itself punishable for a criminal object or the use of criminal means.

Before Chapter V-A

• Before the introduction of Chapter V-A, conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was punishable only in two forms:
• By way of abetment under Section 107 IPC.
• By way of involvement in certain offenses (Sections 310, 401, 400 IPC).

Introduction of Section 121A (1870)

• In 1870,Section 121A was added to the IPC, providing punishment for conspiracy to commit offenses punishable under Section 121, i.e., conspiracy to wage or attempt to wage war against the Government of India.

Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913

• Before 1913, conspiracy was not a crime under the IPC.
• The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 introduced Chapter V-A in the IPC.
• This amendment established criminal conspiracy as a substantive offense.

Definition of Criminal Conspiracy

Section 120A I.P.C.

• Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done:
• An illegal act, or;
• An act that is not illegal by illegal means.

Section 43 of the I.P.C. clarifies that 'illegal' encompasses anything that is an offence, prohibited by law, or grounds for civil action.

The Proviso in Section 120A states that merely agreeing to commit an offence constitutes criminal conspiracy, with no need to prove an overt act or illegal omission. An overt act is only required when the conspiracy aims at an illegal act that is not an offence. It does not matter if the illegal act is the main goal of the agreement or just a minor aspect of it.

Ingredients

• There must be an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act that is not illegal by illegal means.
• There should be a joint intent to commit the illegal act or the act not illegal by illegal means.
• If the other co-conspirators are unknown, missing, or dead, a person can still be indicted alone for the offence of criminal conspiracy.

Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

1. Criminal Conspiracy to Commit a Serious Offence

• If the conspiracy is to commit a serious offence punishable by:
• Death
• Imprisonment for Life
• Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years or More
• And if no specific punishment is provided under the Code for such conspiracy, then:
• Every person involved in the conspiracy will be punished as if they had abetted the offence.

2. Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Other Offences

• If the conspiracy is to commit offences not covered in the first category, then:
• Whoever is a party to such a conspiracy shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or with a fine, or with both.

Proof of Conspiracy

The offence of criminal conspiracy can be established through either direct or circumstantial evidence. Given that conspiracies are typically devised in secretive and private contexts, it becomes nearly impossible to present concrete evidence regarding the date of conspiracy formation, the individuals involved, the objectives of the conspiracy, or the methods planned for carrying out these objectives. Consequently, proving a conspiracy often relies heavily on inferences.

Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act revolves around the concept that once a conspiracy to execute an illegal act is established, the actions of one conspirator are attributed to all.
• This section addresses the admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases, asserting that anything said, done, or written by any conspirator concerning their common intention is admissible against all for proving the conspiracy's existence or an individual's involvement.
• However, certain conditions must be met for such evidence to be considered:
• Reasonable Grounds: There must be a reasonable basis to believe that two or more individuals have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong.
• Timing of Statements: Anything said, done, or written by one conspirator regarding their common intention will be evidence against the others only if it occurs after the intention was first formed by any of them.

Case Laws

Parveen v. State of Haryana (2021) SC

• Four accused were being transported by police from Central Jail, Jaipur to Court of CJM, Bhiwani.
• At Railway Station Nangal Pathani, four boys attacked the police to rescue the accused.
• One accused fired at a Head Constable, who later died from injuries.
• The accused were charged under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act.
• Sessions Court found them guilty, and the High Court upheld the conviction.
• Parveen @ Sonu appealed to the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court ruled that without evidence of a meeting of minds among conspirators, it is unsafe to convict under Section 120B IPC.
• The Court acquitted the appellant, stating that confessions of co-accused alone are insufficient without corroborative evidence.

Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) SC

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the key element of conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to engage in an illegal act.
• Whether the illegal act is carried out or not, the mere agreement itself constitutes an offense and is punishable.

Major E.G. Barsay v. The State of Bombay (1962) SC

• The court determined that an agreement to violate the law is central to the crime of criminal conspiracy as per Section 120A IPC.
• Participants in such an agreement are culpable for criminal conspiracy, even if the unlawful act they planned has not been executed.
• It was also clarified that not all parties need to agree on a single illegal act; a conspiracy can involve multiple acts.

Ram Narain PoplI v. C.B.I. (2003) SC

• The Supreme Court ruled that simply proving an agreement among two or more individuals to perform an unlawful act or an act by unlawful means is sufficient for a conviction of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B.

Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955) SC

• The appellant was accused of conspiracy to use forged documents under Section 120B along with Sections 471 and 420 IPC.
• The Trial Court acquitted all the accused, but the High Court convicted the appellant.
• The Supreme Court ruled that a single person cannot be guilty of criminal conspiracy alone.
• The appellant could not be convicted under Section 120B because his co-conspirators were acquitted.
• Conspiracy requires more than one person; if co-conspirators are acquitted, the accused cannot be guilty unless he conspired with someone not tried.

Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (1958) SC

• The Supreme Court clarified that conspiracy to commit a crime is distinct from the crime that is the target of the conspiracy.
• A conspiracy occurs before the crime and is considered complete before the crime is attempted or carried out.

Conclusion

• Criminal conspiracy is considered an inchoate crime because it does not require the completion of an illegal act. It involves a partnership in crime where all parties are united in pursuing a common plan.
• Currently, the application of criminal conspiracy provisions seems to be too broad, straying from the principles set by the Supreme Court.
• It is essential for higher courts to oversee the misuse of these provisions to maintain the rule of law.